So Dyson sued Samsung in the UK, and now Samsung is suing Dyson in South Korea over that lawsuit? I don't see how they can file a lawsuit complaining about another lawsuit halfway across the world. If their lawsuit was in the UK at least it might have the tiniest sliver of merit.

Is the paradox of filing a reputation tarnishing lawsuit seeking damages for reputation tarnishing enough to get it thrown out? $9.3m is a day's revenue for Dyson and insignificant for a company the size of Samsung. They could have spun this in some positive way, but they're willing to trade a PR opportunity for basically nothing.

Oh what a POS company Samsung has turned into. Calling a "patent troll" a company that is actually an expert in its field and the one that always comes up with innovative products around its core technology? It's enough to just compare Samsung's vacuum cleaner designs to those of Dyson to figure out who the real troll here is.

We patent our technology and naturally defend it. It is surprising that a company over 100 times bigger than Dyson is so worried. The patent system offers us some protection but not enough: with an army of lawyers, hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified.

I find this statement very interesting. The classic argument in support of patents is that they protect the small guy from the big guy. When patent processes go poorly, patents as a concept will still be defended and often come back to talking about some great innovator with small pockets who was able to compete in the landscape of corporate giants only due to the protections they got from patents. In just a few sentences, it seems that Dyson has done damage to this classic theoretical tale of patents.

As I'm sure many here would attest, Dyson is a definite innovator. From my perspective, they consistently invest in R&D to come out with new products that solve common problems in new, innovative ways. Given their statement and the patent litigation, it is clear that Dyson has at least some patents on their inventions. In the same statement, they claim that patents are insufficient to provide adequate protection due to some companies having "[armies] of lawyers."

By no means is Dyson a poor, isolated inventor working out of their garage; they made over a billion (pound sterling) in 2011. So, if a company with more than 4,000 employees and more than a billion in revenue cannot get a perceived level of adequate protection from patents, who is the "small guy" that is being protected?

The world would be a better place. Patents have in effect become a form of economic rent. Perhaps needed for the most expensive IP, but only temporarily, and certainly not in the manner that they're used today - regularly for litigation.

The world would be a better place. Patents have in effect become a form of economic rent. Perhaps needed for the most expensive IP, but only temporarily, and certainly not in the manner that they're used today - regularly for litigation.

Uh.. the whole point of patents is to encourage innovators by granting a temporary monopoly in exchange for disclosing their inventions.

By all means get rid of it for the trolls but ffs don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

By no means is Dyson a poor, isolated inventor working out of their garage; they made over a billion (pound sterling) in 2011. So, if a company with more than 4,000 employees and more than a billion in revenue cannot get a perceived level of adequate protection from patents, who is the "small guy" that is being protected?

Well Dyson was a poor isolated inventor in a garage at one point, and the patents he took out did protect him when Hoover decided to copy his design.

So to go along with you here, I think Dyson is just weird in saying that - Samsung's design accomplished what Dyson did but in a different way which doesn't infringe and Dyson wasted time trying to sue Samsung.

Oh and for the record, Mr. Dyson is pro patent but anti software patent and pro open source.

In a bid to be seen as something more than an ODM Samsung seems to have adopted the less savory aspects of Microsoft, Apple, Google, et. al., without fostering any of their pioneering spirit. Somehow when they were a giant yet mostly quiet company their blatant theft of others was worthy of little more than an eye roll. They were an overeager apprentice desperate to impress their ability to slavishly mimic the master’s work. They’re still trying to pass off their heavily cribbed work as something innovative, but I assume in part due to their resounding success they seem to believe they actually are innovating at the consumer level (they of course are iterating and executing exceptionally well at lower level components, technologies & manufacturing processes)

Samsung execs believe Dyson portrayed the company as a "repeat patent violator or copycat," the Korea Times wrote.

Samsung *is* a repeat patent violator and copycat, and Dyson is well known for being one of the leading innovators in their industry.

Frankly, it will be more difficult name a company that hasn't been sued for patent infringement these days.

Actually rather simple - most patent trolls don't have to worry about that. You can only get sued if you actually produce anything after all..

But, actually, Samsung does have a reputation as a company that targets leading products to copy and sell at a lower price until they get a dominant position and they earned it the hard way by diligently pursuing that practice for about 3 decades. People tend to focus on the present Smartphone war with Apple, but before that they blatantly copied Motorola and Nokia on mobile phones, Sony on audio, video and televisions just to name a few.

Not that they don't move on and innovate under their own steam once they grab market share, but until they get there they're blatant copiers and this is a strategy that was quite publicly articulated by their CEO in the 1990's when they were pushing into global markets. They were quite proud of the fact then as they are now and it reflects the arrogance of a company that has dominant political and economic status in their home country. "What is good for Samsung is good for Korea". If you ever visit Korea you will understand that.

Edit: No doubt this comment will get downrated like my previous, but if people actually check facts they will learn what I am saying above is an accurate accounting of Samsung's history, corporate strategy and corporate culture. Not expecting to win a popularity contest here.

We patent our technology and naturally defend it. It is surprising that a company over 100 times bigger than Dyson is so worried. The patent system offers us some protection but not enough: with an army of lawyers, hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified.

I find this statement very interesting. The classic argument in support of patents is that they protect the small guy from the big guy. When patent processes go poorly, patents as a concept will still be defended and often come back to talking about some great innovator with small pockets who was able to compete in the landscape of corporate giants only due to the protections they got from patents. In just a few sentences, it seems that Dyson has done damage to this classic theoretical tale of patents.

As I'm sure many here would attest, Dyson is a definite innovator. From my perspective, they consistently invest in R&D to come out with new products that solve common problems in new, innovative ways. Given their statement and the patent litigation, it is clear that Dyson has at least some patents on their inventions. In the same statement, they claim that patents are insufficient to provide adequate protection due to some companies having "[armies] of lawyers."

By no means is Dyson a poor, isolated inventor working out of their garage; they made over a billion (pound sterling) in 2011. So, if a company with more than 4,000 employees and more than a billion in revenue cannot get a perceived level of adequate protection from patents, who is the "small guy" that is being protected?

From this part however:

"hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified."

It seems as though Dyson gave up the suit because Samsung found hidden previous art that invalidated their patent(s). And designing around a patent is encouraged by patent systems. That's why patents are published. That where innovation works. Isn't that what so many here want? That patents get invalidated? I'm no defender of Samsung, but if they found prior art, then perhaps that patent never should have been issued.

But, actually, Samsung does have a reputation as a company that targets leading products to copy and sell at a lower price until they get a dominant position and they earned it the hard way by diligently pursuing that practice for about 3 decades. People tend to focus on the present Smartphone war with Apple, but before that they blatantly copied Motorola and Nokia on mobile phones, Sony on audio, video and televisions just to name a few.

And they started with copying even for their name. Samsung means "Three Stars", similar to Mitsubishi, which means "Three Diamonds" (Mitsubishi was established way before Samsung).

Samsung is suing someone, because a patent lawsuit made them look bad?!

Their fucking product releases have made them look bad. Blatantly copying the iPhone at every facet. Their own fucking team has made them look bad. For them to cry about a lawsuit harming their image, maybe they should hire some staff and return the photocopiers to Xerox!

We patent our technology and naturally defend it. It is surprising that a company over 100 times bigger than Dyson is so worried. The patent system offers us some protection but not enough: with an army of lawyers, hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified.

I find this statement very interesting. The classic argument in support of patents is that they protect the small guy from the big guy. When patent processes go poorly, patents as a concept will still be defended and often come back to talking about some great innovator with small pockets who was able to compete in the landscape of corporate giants only due to the protections they got from patents. In just a few sentences, it seems that Dyson has done damage to this classic theoretical tale of patents.

As I'm sure many here would attest, Dyson is a definite innovator. From my perspective, they consistently invest in R&D to come out with new products that solve common problems in new, innovative ways. Given their statement and the patent litigation, it is clear that Dyson has at least some patents on their inventions. In the same statement, they claim that patents are insufficient to provide adequate protection due to some companies having "[armies] of lawyers."

By no means is Dyson a poor, isolated inventor working out of their garage; they made over a billion (pound sterling) in 2011. So, if a company with more than 4,000 employees and more than a billion in revenue cannot get a perceived level of adequate protection from patents, who is the "small guy" that is being protected?

We patent our technology and naturally defend it. It is surprising that a company over 100 times bigger than Dyson is so worried. The patent system offers us some protection but not enough: with an army of lawyers, hidden prior art is occasionally found and ways to design around existing patents identified.

I find this statement very interesting. The classic argument in support of patents is that they protect the small guy from the big guy. When patent processes go poorly, patents as a concept will still be defended and often come back to talking about some great innovator with small pockets who was able to compete in the landscape of corporate giants only due to the protections they got from patents. In just a few sentences, it seems that Dyson has done damage to this classic theoretical tale of patents.

As I'm sure many here would attest, Dyson is a definite innovator. From my perspective, they consistently invest in R&D to come out with new products that solve common problems in new, innovative ways. Given their statement and the patent litigation, it is clear that Dyson has at least some patents on their inventions. In the same statement, they claim that patents are insufficient to provide adequate protection due to some companies having "[armies] of lawyers."

By no means is Dyson a poor, isolated inventor working out of their garage; they made over a billion (pound sterling) in 2011. So, if a company with more than 4,000 employees and more than a billion in revenue cannot get a perceived level of adequate protection from patents, who is the "small guy" that is being protected?

In the US, at least, the classic (Constitutional) argument has nothing to do with "big" or "small." It is solely about "promoting science and the useful arts." From that perspective, it serves to encourage both garage inventors to tinker and huge mega-corporations to invest in R&D.

In theory, like all laws, it is blind to the size and wealth, or lack thereof, of the parties involved.

Wait a minutes, I dont care if there are any patents copying. But it is pretty well known the technology Dyson invented and innovated long ago, which leads to the design and engineering and the final products of Dyson Vacuum Cleaner.

And for those who dont know, the Vacuum Cleaner Samsung made were looking extremely similar.

I just deleted 3000 words to refrain from war. But I mean judge it for yourself.

But, actually, Samsung does have a reputation as a company that targets leading products to copy and sell at a lower price until they get a dominant position and they earned it the hard way by diligently pursuing that practice for about 3 decades. People tend to focus on the present Smartphone war with Apple, but before that they blatantly copied Motorola and Nokia on mobile phones, Sony on audio, video and televisions just to name a few.

Not that they don't move on and innovate under their own steam once they grab market share, but until they get there they're blatant copiers and this is a strategy that was quite publicly articulated by their CEO in the 1990's when they were pushing into global markets. They were quite proud of the fact then as they are now and it reflects the arrogance of a company that has dominant political and economic status in their home country. "What is good for Samsung is good for Korea". If you ever visit Korea you will understand that.

This.

Based on personal experience, my opinion of Korea is that it must rank among the MOST ridiculously parochial nations in the world. They suffer from a severe case of "not invented here" syndrome - if nations were companies. Hence if some innovation or technology exists outside of Korea, they will simply have one of their chaebol conglomerates (e.g. Samsung, LG, Hyundai for tech, Lotte for food and beverages) blatantly "adapt it for the local market".

They also put the kybosh on small businesses and startups, and it has taken government intervention to break that impasse since around 2012 chaebols accounted for 80% of GDP but in the current economic climate they're turning into a drag for the country.

It's no wonder that the litigation was filed on their own home turf, because it would be laughed out of any other jurisdiction.

Not that they don't move on and innovate under their own steam once they grab market share...

I think you make an important point here, though perhaps not the one you intended. Namely that Samsung copies and innovates. That's what all the South Korean companies have been doing of course, as the Japanese did before them, and the Americans before them. It's often said without patents, no one will invest in research, but Samsung clearly illustrates that just because they can copy others doesn't mean they don't also want to do their own research. In fact, while I don't have any figures handy, I'm pretty sure Samsung is among the tech industry's largest R&D spenders.

Of course, once they get big the start their own anti-competitive practices, but that's hardly a reason for stricter patent laws. So my opinion, it's a good product or it isn't, don't care if they copied someone else. Indeed, I tend to think copying is good as it's an important component of forward progress (sharing of ideas and all that, even if unwilling these days).

Samsung practices a close follower business model, just copy everything good. It is very profitable as it costs a lot less to design something once you have model. But users if this model know that lawsuits are an expected cost. Still very profitable.

Samsung is innovative in a few things though, the biggest is probably reducing costs. I keep buying samsung 840 pro SSD's because they are the best ones I can afford.

This is just an attempt by Samsung to push Dyson out of the Korean market by making it more expensive for them to do business.

Young, urban Koreans place a higher value on imported European goods and they know what Dysons are. I've had more than one 20-30 something Korean walk into my house and ask, "Hey, is that a Dyson?" I've given those wand type Dysons as wedding presents (I don't do the Korean wedding cash thing) and they're very well received. A Korean would rather own a Dyson and leave it out to be conspicuously noticed by other brand conscious Koreans, same as they'd rather drive a MINI instead of a KIA or a stripper BMW instead of a loaded Genesis.

This is Samsung trying to A.) drive up the price on Dysons and B.) a PR campaign trying to convince Koreans that see, Samsung is just as good as Dyson.

BTW, here in Korea you can live in a Samsung (built apartment building), drive a Samsung (-Renault car) to a Samsung (store) to buy more Samsung (computers, electronics, appliances). If you get into an accident on your way because you were distracted by your Samsung (phone), you will probably use it to call your car insurance because, you guessed it, is also insured by Samsung.

Wait a minutes, I dont care if there are any patents copying. But it is pretty well known the technology Dyson invented and innovated long ago, which leads to the design and engineering and the final products of Dyson Vacuum Cleaner.

And for those who dont know, the Vacuum Cleaner Samsung made were looking extremely similar.

This is not about "looks" this is about "did they violate the patents or not". If they didn't violate the patents, because they avoided them like they're supposed if you don't licence them, then they're in the right.

Samsung are clearly damned if they do, or bitched-about because they're doing the right thing if they don't.

And the complaints are amazing since the patent laws appear to have worked in this instance: they "promoted science and the useful arts" by forcing Samsung to 'innovate' around them, clearly successfully as Dyson dropped the invalid suit.

FYI, I own a Dyson, and it works amazingly well, but it's clearly marked up as a brand name the same way my iPad is. If Samsung can make a better device at a lower price point, then it's clearly a success of the much vaunted "capitalism and the free market". (cue eye roll)

And designing around a patent is encouraged by patent systems. That's why patents are published.

No, that's not why they are published. They are published because the whole point of patents is to encourage technology to eventually enter the public domain rather than become lost over time. The monopoly granted by patents is merely the incentive for disclosure, not the primary purpose. Or at least that's what they were originally conceived for.

Samsung execs believe Dyson portrayed the company as a "repeat patent violator or copycat," the Korea Times wrote.

Samsung *is* a repeat patent violator and copycat, and Dyson is well known for being one of the leading innovators in their industry.

Frankly, it will be more difficult name a company that hasn't been sued for patent infringement these days.

Actually rather simple - most patent trolls don't have to worry about that. You can only get sued if you actually produce anything after all..

Edit: No doubt this comment will get downrated like my previous, but if people actually check facts they will learn what I am saying above is an accurate accounting of Samsung's history, corporate strategy and corporate culture. Not expecting to win a popularity contest here.

I liked your post except for this paragraph. I down vote everyone who wastes my time whining about the voting system. Go complain somewhere else and leave this thread for comments that are about the story.

The suit is stupid but I still don't like Dyson, anyone who has the gall to create a fan that is loud as hell and blows less air than a normal fan and then charge 10x the price are not too respectable either.

It sounds like Dyson is basically admitting that the patents they wanted to use to sue Samsung were bad, because there was prior art (meaning that Dyson should never have been granted those patents), and that Samsung worked around them (meaning that the patents didn't cover what Samsung did). It's probably not a good idea for Samsung to sue Dyson, but I think the claim Samsung makes — Dyson made them look bad without Samsung actually having violated any legitimate patents — seems to be entirely true.

In other news, this is another great example for how screwed up the patent system is. Most patents don't publish any useful information that you couldn't gain from simply looking at the product it covers. The patent system is being abused by patent trolls. It doesn't protect smaller companies (who are the ones who might actually need some legitimate protection) from larger ones. And many patents are bs to begin with and should never have been granted, because there is prior art.

Somebody said we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, but I'm sorry; I don't see a baby in this bath. All I see is another tool for huge multinational corporation to kill smaller ones, and for crooks to blackmail everybody else.